CONSULTATION REPORT WORKS APPROVAL 18643 – BLOCKS 707 AND 708 MAJURA 314 MAJURA ROAD MAJURA, CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR FARM AUGUST 2013 Table of Content PART 1 - INTRODUCTION 3 PART 2 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS 3 2.1 National Capital Plan 3 2.2 Commitment to Community Engagement 3 PART 3 – SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION 4 3.1 The public consultation process 4 3.2 Submissions received 5 PART 4 – RESPONSE TO KEY ISSUES 5 Conclusion 8 Attachment A – Location plan 9 Attachment B - Canberra Times – public notice 10 Attachment C – Letter to residents 11 Attachment D – Summary of submissions 12 Attachment E – Letters from CASA 24 2 PART 1 - INTRODUCTION Under the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, the National Capital Authority (NCA) prepares and administers the National Capital Plan (the Plan) to ensure that Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance. The Plan sets out the broad planning framework for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Areas designated as having special characteristics of the National Capital are subject to detailed planning policies and guidelines. Any building or structure, demolition, landscaping or excavation works in Designated Areas require the approval of the NCA. The NCA considers such proposals in the context of the relevant provisions of the Plan. On 23 October 2012, the NCA received an application from Solar Choice for the construction of a solar farm adjacent to Mount Majura Winery. The application comprises the installation of a 4 mega watt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) array along with supporting infrastructure (inverters, grid connection, electrical connections, storage facilities, internal roads and landscaping) on approximately 13.8 hectares of land. The project would utilise the existing onsite 11,000V distribution network operated by ActweAGL Distribution for connection to the distribution network and national electricity market. Between 2 and 26 November 2012, the NCA sought further information to accompany the Works Approval application. It should be noted that the current application provides the broad concept for the solar farms’ layout. A further Works Approval application will be required prior to construction commencing which will provide design detail for all elements of the proposal. PART 2 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS 2.1 National Capital Plan Under the Plan, the requirements for public consultation apply, but are not limited to, certain residential developments, telecommunications facilities (that are not considered low impact) and amending or issuing an instrument under the Plan (including Development Control Plans). 2.2 Commitment to Community Engagement The NCA’s ‘Commitment to Community Engagement (August 2011)’ details how the NCA conducts consultation. The purpose is to achieve a greater level of consistency and transparency in the NCA’s decision making process. The Commitment to Community Engagement describes: • the minimum requirements for consultation • the timeframes for amendments to the Plan • what is involved in preparing a new Development Control Plan • the process for amending or issuing an instrument under the Plan • the process which will assess Works Approval applications for possible release for public consultation. Part 2 (Consultation Protocol) of the NCA’s Commitment to Community Engagement (August 2011) describes the consultation process for Works Approval applications. The consultation protocol includes 3 criteria which an application will be assessed, in order to determine whether the application should be released for public notification or full public consultation. For development applications, the NCA undertakes a risk assessment of each proposal against the assessment criteria set out in the Consultation Protocol. The public notification process will include information about the NCA’s risk assessment of the proposal against the assessment criteria below. 1. What is the likelihood that the proposal will adversely affect existing public space and / or community amenity? 2. What is the likelihood that the proposal will adversely affect existing environmental, heritage or landscape values? 3. What is the likelihood that the proposal is discordant with the general development and amenity of the locality in terms of materials, finishes, scale, massing, design and quality? 4. What is the likelihood that the proposal is inconsistent with an existing Heritage Management Plan (HMP)? (If there is no HMP, this question is not applicable). The combination of the likelihood and consequence from the criteria above categorises an overall perceived risk into five ratings being ‘negligible’, ‘low’, ‘significant’, ‘high’ or ‘extreme’. Works assessed as having an ‘extreme’ risk will be rejected. Full public consultation for Works Approvals will be required where the NCA’s perceived risk rating is ‘significant’ or ‘high’, and also for any development where consultation is a mandatory requirement under the Plan. When a Works Approval application is lodged and consultation is required, the applicant is required to consult with the community and stakeholders. The NCA may stipulate specific requirements for consultation and, for higher perceived risk proposals, may undertake the consultation process itself. The NCA may set aside the requirement to undertake full public consultation where: (a) previous consultation has been undertaken (b) for minor amendments to previously approved works (c) proposals are exempt, as demonstrated in the ‘Commitment to Community Engagement (August 2011)’ (d) the NCA determines it unnecessary and no stakeholders will be affected. The Plan has specific requirements in relation to consultation for telecommunications facility, in relation to any new towers, masts or monopoles. As the application for the construction of a solar farm on Blocks 707 and 708 was assessed at a level of risk greater than ‘low’, the application was subject to full public consultation. PART 3 – SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION 3.1 The public consultation process Between 20 March and 16 April 2013, public consultation on the application was undertaken. The consultation took the form of: • On 20 March 2013, publishing a public notice in The Canberra Times detailing the proposed works and inviting submissions to be made to the NCA in relation to the proposal (Attachment A). 4 • Between 20 March and 16 April 2013, publishing details of the proposal, including the applicant’s plans and planning report on the NCA’s website. • Between 20 March and 16 April 2013 signs were installed on site, fronting Majura Road. • On 21 March 2013, the NCA hand delivered notification letters to properties surrounding the site (including properties at least 10km to the north and south of the site) inviting comments. • At conclusion of the public consultation period on 16 April 2013, fourteen submissions were received. • On 10 May 2013, following public comments and requests from Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Air Services Australia for a risk assessment, the NCA sought additional information from the applicant. • On 12 July 2013, the applicant submitted two glare analysis reports, ‘The Mount Majura Solar Farm – Glare Analysis’, prepared by CBRE and ‘Solar Glare Aviation Hazard Evaluation Engineering Report’ prepared by Canadian Solar – based in Canada. The NCA referred these reports to CASA (as the independent statutory authority with responsibility for the safety of civil aviation in Australia) and Air Services Australia for comment. • CASA reviewed the glare impact reports and on 5 August 2013, advised the NCA that the development does not appear to present a hazard to aviation. On 29 August 2013, the Canberra Airport requested CASA review its advice to the NCA. • On 10 September 2013, Air Services Australia advised the NCA that the proposed solar farm would not affect the approach or departure procedure at Canberra Airport. • On 20 September 2013, CASA provided advice to both the NCA and Canberra Airport regarding the requested review of previous advice. It was confirmed there was a ‘low potential’ for glare impacting on approaching aircraft and as such does not appear to be a hazard to aviation. • On 23 September 2013, CASA confirmed its earlier advice that the development does not appear to provide a hazard to aviation. • On 1 October 2013, the NCA received a late submission from Qantas Airways Limited. 3.1 Submissions received The NCA received 14 submissions during the consultation period. In addition, a submission was received from Qantas on 1 October 2013. Seven submissions were from the following government agencies which were invited to provide comment on the proposal: CASA, Air Services Australia, Department of Defence, Australian Federal Police (AFP), ACT Heritage Council, Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate (ESDD) (Conservator) and ACT Roads. The remaining submissions were from the community as well as a submission from Canberra International Airport and the submission from Qantas. Letters or emails of acknowledgment were sent to all the submitters advising them that their submissions will be taken into consideration before a decision is made on the application. The key issues raised in the submissions are summarised below: PART 4 – RESPONSE TO KEY ISSUES A summary of the key issues raised in the submissions and the NCA response is provided below. Summaries of the submissions and the NCA response are at Attachment D. 5 1. Potential for habitat of the